Didn’t see a thread about this show, so I started this. Just got done w/the first series and I was impressed w/the modern take on the classic story. Benedict Cumberbatch is perfection as the title character and Martin Freeman is a great straight man as Dr. Watson. “A Study in Pink” was my favorite installment from the first series. The second episode w/the Chinese art theif ring lost me and the final episode was engaging enough, but that ending was a hot $3 mess w/all that scenery chewing. Will catchup w/series two either today or tomorrow.

I adore this show and think it is the second best show on tv right now, behind Breaking Bad. It’s just too good. And if it doesn’t get nominated for Miniseries and if benedict Cumberbatch doesn’t get nodded, I will most probably have a heart attack.

Yeah. Everything about this series is incredible. Even if one has read the stories, it’s still interesting and engaging. Cumberbatch and Freeman are masters of acting. I would love to see them both be nominated , with a Cumberbatch win (stupid category clumping,) and a Miniseries win. I cannot wait for next season. It shall be painful, but I suppose it will also be worth it.

I think “Sherlock” is brilliant. Of the six episodes thus far, I’d say the first episode, “Study in Pink,” is still the high water mark. Series 2 didn’t have quite a moment to match it, but I thought it was still excellent.

I downloaded a collection of “Sherlock” stories on my Kindle and only got around to reading one of them, when ended up being adapted into the series 2 premiere, “Scandal in Belgravia.” That gave me a new appreciation for the work of Steven Moffat and company in adapting the stories, because the original story is really much too small and brief to fill a 90-minute narrative, and I love how creatively they opened it up.

I too felt Andrew Scott’s broad performance was jarring in the first season. I was able to much better appreciate it in series 2. It’s still broad and in a sense absurd, but there’s a sinister, maniacal quality to it that, given a full episode to spread out in, really grabbed me.

I thought “A Scandal in Belgravia” was a great episode, in my opinion better than “A Study in Pink” , the latter being more of a classy and stylish episode, but everything worked so well on the former and that finale?? breathtaking, I also have this show as my second favorite just behind Breaking Bad, Cumberbatch should win the emmy, c’mon, voters need to drop this bias of recognizing only famous actors, he matchs the quality of Owen and Harrelson, for the acting any of them would be a fair win but Sherlock’s character is so well written and played by Cumberbatch that it’s impossible not root for him and Freeman deserves at least some recognition.

A friend of mine told me today how much she loved this show. She couldn’t wait for the next episodes to air. And this must mean something since she’s really not the biggest TV watcher. Maybe I’ll check it out.But I gotta say that Cumbersnatch guy is beyond creepy and disgusting… eww

I’ve never read any of the Sherlock books, and never had much interest in them, or the various Sherlock movies…. but I got a taste of this series while visiting a friend, and was hooked. It is brilliant. So smart and engaging, and the acting is excellent. It’s at the top of my list for mini-series. The series, and Cumberbatch, should win this. I do hope Freeman is nominated, as well. What great casting. Loved Andrew Scott, too.

Agreed with the huzzahs here. I devoured all six episodes like salty potato chips (the first three aired after “Downton Abbey,” which was TV heaven). If this doesn’t rack up lots of Emmy nods, I’ll be thoroughly shocked. Honestly, all three, including Andrew Scott as Moriarty, are strong Emmy contenders (Scott grew on me by the second series). Lara Pulver was fantastic as Irene Adler, too, and a worthy adversary for Sherlock.

Agreed that “A Study in Pink” and “Scandal in Belgravia,” I think, are the strongest episodes. I liked Cumberbatch’s work, however, in “Hounds of Baskerville” when he was experiencing fear for the first time and didn’t understand how to process the sensation. It was fascinating to watch.

I think the show committed a blunder by only entering “Scandal In Belgravia” for Emmy consideration. Considering the sketchy inclusions of “Missing,” “The River,” “Luther,” and “The Hour” in the movie/miniseries race, “Sherlock” should have easily qualified as a miniseries with all three episodes entered.

Also unfortunate: only entering “Belgravia” means Andrew Scott isn’t up for consideration at all for his role as Moriarty.

I think the show committed a blunder by only entering “Scandal In Belgravia” for Emmy consideration. Considering the sketchy inclusions of “Missing,” “The River,” “Luther,” and “The Hour” in the movie/miniseries race, “Sherlock” should have easily qualified as a miniseries with all three episodes entered.

Also unfortunate: only entering “Belgravia” means Andrew Scott isn’t up for consideration at all for his role as Moriarty.

Oh, really? That’s annoying. Still expect it to figure well with Emmy voters, however.

[quote=”Daniel_Montgomery”]I think the show committed a blunder by only entering “Scandal In Belgravia” for Emmy consideration. Considering the sketchy inclusions of “Missing,” “The River,” “Luther,” and “The Hour” in the movie/miniseries race, “Sherlock” should have easily qualified as a miniseries with all three episodes entered.

Also unfortunate: only entering “Belgravia” means Andrew Scott isn’t up for consideration at all for his role as Moriarty.

Oh, really? That’s annoying. Still expect it to figure well with Emmy voters, however. [/quote]

Well, Scandal in belgravia is another stunning, amazing, masterpiece-like episode which i would fall in love with and vote for if I were an emmy voter. The “Think, it’s the new sexy.” bits are just too good to ignore. They should have submitted it as a miniseries but I guess PBS and BBC wanted to play it by the book.I hope it gets Cumberbatch and movie/minisieries nods (and hopefully wins),
and possibly even a nod for Martin Freeman.

It’s odd that PBS Masterpiece decided to play “by the book” by entering only a single episode, because they’re the only ones playing by the book anymore. The TV Academy doesn’t even use the book anymore, except maybe to prop up uneven table legs.

To rant briefly, my problem with the new way of doing things is that their eligibility decisions aren’t consistent:

– If “The River” can be called a miniseries, why not “Awake” or “Luck”? They’re all cancelled one-season dramas that ended without resolution.

– If “Luther” was eligible last year, why wasn’t “The Walking Dead”? Both were 6-episode first seasons of continuing dramas that ended without resolution.

– And if “Luther” is eligible this year, why not “Sherlock”? Both are continuing dramas with too few episodes to compete as series (4 and 3, respectively), and both told stand-alone mystery stories that were not unified into one single, complete narrative, and both are coming back for third seasons.

If they’re going to change the rules, they need to apply their new rules equally to all shows. It’s unfair to pick and choose where a particular rule applies.

Yes, it’s sad that the brilliant Adrew Scott won’t be a contender, and Daniel, I believe the 90 minutes factor don’t qualify Sherock to submit more than one episode??? isn’t it? I read something about it but I was surprised because it is contending for mini-series so it’s very weird they’re not submiting more than one episode, maybe PBS doesn’t think american voters will vote for the show as they did with DA, they’re so wrong, everyone I talk to loves that show.

It’s odd that PBS Masterpiece decided to play “by the book” by entering only a single episode, because they’re the only ones playing by the book anymore. The TV Academy doesn’t even use the book anymore, except maybe to prop up uneven table legs.

If they’re going to change the rules, they need to apply their new rules equally to all shows. It’s unfair to pick and choose where a particular rule applies.

Heh, good crack about how they use their “book.”

Same weird inconsistencies in the animation categories. They need a Grammys-style makeover.

It’s odd that PBS Masterpiece decided to play “by the book” by entering only a single episode, because they’re the only ones playing by the book anymore. The TV Academy doesn’t even use the book anymore, except maybe to prop up uneven table legs.

To rant briefly, my problem with the new way of doing things is that their eligibility decisions aren’t consistent:

– If “The River” can be called a miniseries, why not “Awake” or “Luck”? They’re all cancelled one-season dramas that ended without resolution.

– If “Luther” was eligible last year, why wasn’t “The Walking Dead”? Both were 6-episode first seasons of continuing dramas that ended without resolution.

– And if “Luther” is eligible this year, why not “Sherlock”? Both are continuing dramas with too few episodes to compete as series (4 and 3, respectively), and both told stand-alone mystery stories that were not unified into one single, complete narrative, and both are coming back for third seasons.

If they’re going to change the rules, they need to apply their new rules equally to all shows. It’s unfair to pick and choose where a particular rule applies.

Absolutely agreed. The telefilm/miniseries and guest acting categories are completely broken in terms of rules and placement. Yet, their answer to fixing the problem (with the former anyway) is eliminating Lead and Supporting placement and creating one category each. How about eliminating programs that were created as series only to get canceled so they fraud right over to telefilm/miniseries. And, quality aside, it will never make sense that AHS and Downton, Abbey were in these categories.